We have lost the real point of the 2A

This is a discussion on We have lost the real point of the 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I believe we have lost track of the real point of the 2nd Amendment:
2A states that the citizens have the right to bear arms; ...

We have lost the real point of the 2A

I believe we have lost track of the real point of the 2nd Amendment:

2A states that the citizens have the right to bear arms; but much more importantly, and totally independent of any argument about what types of weapons that the framers of the Constitution could have foreseen is one simple truth, a simple truth that is the foundation of the 2A:

The government does not have the right to tell the people of the United States that they cannot bear arms.

I think people miss many points about the 2nd amendment. It isn't about hunting, it isn't even really about personal protection. The 2nd amendment is so 'we the people' can protect our self's from a government that has decided it isn't " we the people ".

Well then, it's time for you to go with the full implications of this. You (constitutionally speaking) should not need to be background checked, forced to fill out ATF forms, or told what kind of weapon you can or cannot buy. This means if I want to go to Wal-Mart and buy a full-auto M4 with a 14.5" barrel, and a suppressor...I have every right to do so. If you won't accept that, then don't go whining about how the 2A isn't properly recognized anymore. If you agree with the foregoing....congratulations, you get it.

Well, I don't think even our founding fathers would have thought it was ok for a crazy person or a violent person, as in someone who wants to kill and rape the neighbors, to have a gun. We need to be able to weed those people out somehow. I think if you are a law abiding citizen, who is not mentally ill to the extent you might hurt someone, you should be able to have any gun you want.

2A states that the citizens have the right to bear arms; but much more importantly, and totally independent of any argument about what types of weapons that the framers of the Constitution could have foreseen is one simple truth, a simple truth that is the foundation of the 2A:

The government does not have the right to tell the people of the United States that they cannot bear arms.

Well then, it's time for you to go with the full implications of this. You (constitutionally speaking) should not need to be background checked, forced to fill out ATF forms, or told what kind of weapon you can or cannot buy. This means if I want to go to Wal-Mart and buy a full-auto M4 with a 14.5" barrel, and a suppressor...I have every right to do so. If you won't accept that, then don't go whining about how the 2A isn't properly recognized anymore. If you agree with the foregoing....congratulations, you get it.

Oh and don't forget, non-citizens are fully protected by that right as well... and that means that Paco, or Chin Ho who just came over on the boat, should also be able to go to Wal-mart, buy a full-auto M4 with a 14.5" barrel, and a suppressor... Even though the founders did not consider slaves (of any nationality) to be more than property... and women... well I don't know what they thought of them but that they were chattel as well....

So, It'd be okay to go to Walmart if you were a white male property owner... not so much if you weren't. I mean, if you're gonna be a stickler for Constitutionality... You might as well go the whole megillah.

Yes I agree that the government shouldn't infringe upon our rights to own guns, but it's a little more complicated. As far as the paperwork goes, it doesn't bother me to fill out the paperwork if that is something that can keep guns out of the hands of felons or people that are mentally unstable. I know it isn't a perfect system, but it does do some good. If you are a regular law abiding citizen, it shouldn't be an issue. The ATF does a decent job at weeding out felons etc, but people with mental issues are able to slip through the cracks more easily with our current system. I think that as gun owners and citizens in this country this problem definitely needs addressing, and there needs to be some compromise from people on both ends of the spectrum. If having to wait an extra day or two to actually pick up a gun from a store is the result of more thorough checks I don't think that is a huge price to pay. I ordered a Kimber and I have been waiting for a few months but I am still going to be a kid in a candy shop when it shows up.

Oh and don't forget, non-citizens are fully protected by that right as well... and that means that Paco, or Chin Ho who just came over on the boat, should also be able to go to Wal-mart, buy a full-auto M4 with a 14.5" barrel, and a suppressor... Even though the founders did not consider slaves (of any nationality) to be more than property... and women... well I don't know what they thought of them but that they were chattel as well....

So, It'd be okay to go to Walmart if you were a white male property owner... not so much if you weren't. I mean, if you're gonna be a stickler for Constitutionality... You might as well go the whole megillah.

Just sayin'

You know you're right. Let's get right down to it, because the 13A and 14A are also there. The Constitution says what it says, and throwing out the nonsense about the Founders' view on slaves serves no purpose whatsoever. The expressed purpose of the 14A was to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states, and to make it apply to everyone. Illegal immigrants...there should be no such thing. Abolish tax dollars being used to "help people" through welfare programs, and anyone who enters this country would have to sink or swim on their own. The argument that you have to pay for them vanishes, and we only attract productive people. So, with that being said...I say let them come and buy their M4s at Wal-Mart. I damn sure don't want to sit here paying the price in my own freedoms for what someone who has come from Mexico looking for a better life might do, and you shouldn't either. Let's allow true liberty to rise, reject the parts our Founding Fathers got wrong, embrace what they got right and expand upon it. Using the fact that they owned slaves (something that was very common in their time, and throughout human history) as an excuse for restricting people now and not taking the Constitution seriously will get no sympathy from me.

I don't think we've lost sight as a people of what the Amendment is about. A majority of Americans, even a significant amount of Democrats, believe we have a right to bear arms. What the issue is right now is exactly what "arms" are we allowed to own. A lot of Democrats don't believe we should be allowed to own assault rifles. And I disagree with them.

But "arms" at the time of the ratification of the Amendment meant any "arm" that would be useful for military purposes, and the Court recognizes that in the Heller decision. How are "arms" defined? I'm sure everybody has an opinion on that. But I mean Constitutionally speaking how are "arms" defined? Does that mean I can own an M1A1 Abrams tank? What about a F-16? A predator drone? What about a nuclear warhead?

Clearly, I am being extreme there, but the point is that somewhere there is a limit to the Second Amendment. Americans agree that it guarantees our right to bear arms, but where is the line drawn on what arms we can have is where we have our disagreements.

And yes, I'm aware a minority of people want to ban guns altogether, too bad for them they will need another Amendment for that repealing the Second.

It was common for the people of the day to use military weapons. In the context of which it was written, it would mean that full auto M-16s should be legal for all. The founding fathers intended for the citizens to be armed equal to, or better than the standing army at that time.

History shows up that during the Revolution, citizens often had better weapons than the opposing British Army did. Those hunting rifles were supeiror to the standard unrifled muskets of the day.

I sure that the liberals here would disagree, but they are mentally challenged anyway,so I dont take what they say too seriously.

It was common for the people of the day to use military weapons. In the context of which it was written, it would mean that full auto M-16s should be legal for all. The founding fathers intended for the citizens to be armed equal to, or better than the standing army at that time.

History shows up that during the Revolution, citizens often had better weapons than the opposing British Army did. Those hunting rifles were supeiror to the standard unrifled muskets of the day.

I sure that the liberals here would disagree, but they are mentally challenged anyway,so I dont take what they say too seriously.

Absolutely. You get what I'm saying completely. And they make reference to M-16s by name in Heller, but wrestle with the issues I said. If we interpret the Amendment in our times as any military useful weapon that would make the people useful for defense then where is the line drawn? We're already seeing drones being created for civilian use. Can I own one? What about a drone armed with missiles?

I think that is where as a people our nation is in a debate. To what extent does the Second Amendment go. The anti-gun total ban people are a minority on this. There are people like us in these forums that believe in a wide interpretation of the Amendment. And the rest of the people in the middle agree we can own weapons but are not sure what weapons exactly.

This is why we should not be too extreme in our rhetoric, we're not trying to convince the anti-gun liberals to get on board with our argument. We're trying to get the people in the middle to see that we are right. We need to educate people on why the Second Amendment exists. And in regards to specific issues like the AWB we need to show them that they are not the evil weapons they are being portrayed as by the media. Explain that a .223 is not some magic bullet and the ARs are not some super rifle.